When to recommend compulsory versus optional CME programs? A study to establish criteria.

Abstract

When should remedial continuing medical education (CME) be compulsory for family physicians? When should it be optional? Should it be structured or not? In 1993-1994, the authors addressed this need for criteria by conducting a study that used reports on 14 physicians who had undergone a structured oral interview (SOI) at the College of Physicians of Quebec. (The SOI is a day-long encounter during which two specially trained physician-interviewers present a physician with standardized clinical cases that focus on ten specific aspects of a family physician's competence.) The 14 SOI reports were reviewed by 12 external physician-judges in an attempt to see how consistently they could link the ten aspects of competence, as shown in the reports, to five particular types of recommended remedial CME programs (the strictest being "compulsory program with suspended license" and the most lenient being "simple suggestions for improvement"). There was substantial agreement among the judges when choosing between compulsory and optional programs (kappa = 0.63, p < .05). The main criteria used when recommending an optional program were overall strengths and the quality of clinical reasoning. The same two criteria were also used for recommending a compulsory program, but the judges also considered three additional factors: the physician's ability to recognize his or her limits and how he or she handled referrals and prescribed medications. Many of the criteria used by the judges were based on unique information that came out of observations and interactions during the SOIs, such as quality of argumentation, sustaining a train of thought, sense for the case as a whole, or awareness of one's limits. Finally, the external judges corroborated the decisions previously made by the College of Physicians of Quebec concerning the appropriate CME programs for the 14 physicians.